(12/10/28 23:51), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > However, that brings up a further problem. If you *first* stretch, > but the item is also flexible, the flexing can cause it to no longer > fill the flex line. In other words, it might simply be impossible to > simultaneously honor the aspect ratio, the 'stretch' keyword, and a > non-zero "flex" value. This is similar to how you can't always > simultaneously honor width, height, and the aspect ratio. We satisfy > the latter by breaking the ratio; we consider an explicit width and > height to be stronger than the implicit aspect ratio. I think there is a relevant question here: Should a replaced item's, say, min cross size property induce a min main size when an item flexes? The current spec # Fix min/max violations. Clamp each item's main size by its min and # max main size properties.... seems to say it doesn't, but this might produce stretched images when the item is laid out after flexing, no matter what 'align-self' it has, since min/max properties are strong. I think the spec could consider saying that for an replaced element, it's the *effective min main size* that's used in this step. The *effective min main size* is defined by this formula: max( min main size, min ( min cross size * w/h , max main size ) ) where w is the intrinsic width, h is the intrinsic height max main size is the maximal of the max main size and the min main size properties . And effective max main size would be defined similarly. Or was it resolved that the min cross size property should be ignored in this case? -- Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 06:23:29 UTC
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4